Seriously, my comment was deleted? How about I make it even more tame this time? Given the choice between these two, I'd vote to get kicked in the shin repeatedly. It would be less harmful to our future than either of these clowns.

The first glaring omission in it, is that ALL of the places where shootings happened in which were referenced by the writer were in GUN FREE ZONES. In other words, places the shooters knew they were not going to face the possibility of having someone shoot back. Even Fort Hood, the crime took place in the only part of the area that was a gun free zone.

Just the other day, a 71 year old man with a concealed carry permit thwarted two robbers at a public cafe who brandished a gun.

The biggest mistake we could make from the kneejerk reactions to this incident would be pushing for gun bans. If you want empirical evidence rather than speculation on the results, look no further than australia to see the results. Massive increases in gun crime since their bans took effect.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted at Universities in Holland, shows that Australia leads the list of developed countries with 30% of it's population victimized by violent crime since the ban. By Contrast, the U.S. doesn't even crack the top 10.

In Colorado, if Century Cinema 16 allowed citizens to carry like they can in most of the state, the results could have been different. And before someone tries to claim the guy was bulletproof because of the body armor, his Tactical IIA vests would be penetrated in 1 shot by a .9MM, .40 or .45 Caliber.

In short, the surest way to increase gun crimes is to institute more gun control. It is dangerous to think that gun laws will prevent gun crimes, when common sense and reality show that criminals clearly don't follow the law.

What is incredible to me is the number of people wanting to ban guns because of this incident, where 12 people were tragically killed, who also give Obama and many others in this administration a free pass for selling guns to drug cartels who killed thousands with them, including 2 border patrol agents.

How about instead of bleeding heart rhetoric, we actually take a look at reality and realize that disarming the 65 million legal gun owning Americans who DON'T commit crimes will not stop gun crimes, in fact, it will likely make them increase.

I am sure if the writer of this opinion had been in that theater, and the patron down her aisle was able to return fire on the evil person who did it, she might have a different tune.

UNC and Duke have been annointed as amazing for 20 years, because they dominated the 4 team tobacco road rivalry years ago when there weren't many hoops powerhouses. They are nice teams no doubt, but routinely overrated.

Other than that, the ACC doesn't have much for hoops. If they played the last few years BE schedule, they would only get a few more teams into the tournament.

Their venues suck, the fans don't come out to most of their games, and the tempo of their games is like watching linoleum curl.

It isn't like the BE, where on any given night, it is tough to choose between 5-6 games as to which one should be the featured game for the conference.

That much better in the course of a year? 2 years before the cancer, he became the second youngest rider in history to win a stage of the tour.

He finished 36th overall when he wasn't even the team leader the year before that. He was considered a threat to win it before his sickness forced him to withdraw the year he discovered he had cancer.

By your logic, anyone who is good at something must have cheated.

Sorry, but unless he had failed a test, which he never did despite being the most tested athlete in the history of sports, then there is no proof.

It is a sad day when the burden of proof is tossed aside for the testimony of people who were caught cheating (if they were taking the same things together, why did they test positive and he didn't? Was his blood cheating as well?) saying someone else cheated. Some of which inexplicably were allowed to continue competing despite being caught.

Imagine if this were a murder trial, and you were accused. Now there is zero physical evidence that links you to any of it, and the REAL governing authorities refused to bring up charges against you. But an independent court, using the evidence the GOVERNMENT ruled was not sufficient enough to warrant charges against you, then charged you in their OWN court, presided over by it's OWN members, and then brought in ex-cons who mysteriously got out early to testify against you as "Witnesses"...

Witch hunt. Little more than an angry little agency that got too big for it's britches trying to make a name for themselves.

The "evidence" they are citing is the same evidence that Congress had, and decided not to file any charges because it wasn't really evidence.

Then they have the word, of people they refuse to identify (right to face your accuser?), and the word of people who identified themselves, who all happen to be people who failed the drug tests that Armstrong did not fail. At this point, they face either a lifetime ban unless they testify against him OR have book deals lined up.